What Did 1924’s National Origins Quotas Really Accomplish?

Summary

• The Immigration Act of 1924 ushered in a four-decade-long "Great Pause" in mass immigration. This allowed the United States to assimilate the 20-plus million immigrants who had arrived during the “Great Wave” that had begun in the 1880s. And the Act fostered a national economic climate conducive to the flowering of the American Dream, especially for Black Americans.
• Not only did the 1924 Act dramatically reduce immigration, it also established country-by-country immigration quotas, primarily for European countries, in order to stem the increasing proportion of European immigrants coming from Southern and Eastern Europe since the 1880s. The Act’s authors anticipated that it would result in 75 percent or more of future immigrants coming from Northwestern Europe and in their minds make America a more homogeneous society. But did the quotas work as advertised before Congress did away with them in the Immigration Act of 1965? Through this report, I endeavored to find out.
• I have designated as “favored” a European country whose immigration quota under the 1924 Act was greater than 10 percent of the average yearly number of immigrants it sent to the U.S. from 1900 to 1909. Favored countries ranged from Great Britain/the United Kingdom (140 percent) to Norway (13 percent), with quotas averaging 69 percent. Conversely, I designated a European country whose quota was 10 percent or less as a “disfavored” country. Disfavored countries had quotas averaging only 3 percent. The quotas for the favored countries added up to 84 percent of the cumulative quota for European countries. All favored nations were located in Northwestern Europe and all disfavored nations were located in Southern or Eastern Europe.
• The quotas failed spectacularly to increase America’s “homogeneity”, if that term is defined to mean a predominance of immigrants from Northwestern Europe in America’s European immigrant population. A comparison of the makeup of immigrants born in Europe and residing in the United States in 1920 with the makeup of European immigrants residing in the U.S. in 1960 and 1970 is startling. According to the 1920 Census, immigrants from the favored European countries represented less than half — 46 percent — of all European immigrants then residing in the U.S. By 1960, after three and a half decades of national origins quotas designed to ensure that most European immigrants came from Northwestern Europe, immigrants from the favored countries represented a lower proportion of European immigrants residing in the U.S. than they had in 1920 — 41 percent! In 1970, after four and a half decades of national origins quotas, they still represented a lower proportion — 42 percent!
• How can this be? One possible explanation is that the favored countries used less of their quota numbers than did the disfavored countries. In fact, during the 1930 to 1968 period overall, the favored countries utilized just 37 percent of their quota numbers while the disfavored countries utilized all of theirs. Had the favored countries fully utilized their quotas from 1947 to 1968 (postwar years of prosperity) and two thirds of the resulting additional immigrants still resided in the U.S. in 1970, the overall number of immigrants from the favored countries would have actually outnumbered those from the disfavored countries in 1970.
• Another possible explanation looks at the humanitarian immigration programs instituted by Congress and the executive branch following World War II. From 1946 to 1968, 705,520 European immigrants arrived under these programs (largely outside of the national origin quotas), increasing European immigration by 34 percent over what it otherwise would have been. Did proportionately fewer refugees, displaced persons, and other beneficiaries originate in the favored countries than in the disfavored countries? Indeed they did. Only 18 percent came from favored countries, while 82 percent came from disfavored countries.
• Another possible explanation looks at those European immigrants (other than humanitarian immigrants) who arrived outside of the quotas. Over the 1925 to 1965 period, 79 percent of all European immigrants arrived within the quotas. Did immigrants from favored countries make less use of the nonquota categories? Indeed, they appear to have done so. I examined data for three years — 1930, 1957, and 1965. Excluding humanitarian immigrants, in those years, 98, 88, and 92 percent, respectively, of immigrants from favored countries arrived as quota immigrants, while only 45, 59, and 60 percent, respectively, of immigrants from disfavored countries did so. Assuming that 10 percent of immigrants from a favored country were utilizing nonquota visas, that country’s immigrants would have had to increase by 50 percent (all nonquota) in order to raise the proportion of nonquota visas used to 40 percent.

• It is thus possible to explain why during the era governed by the 1924 Act the proportion of European immigration coming from favored countries with relatively generous quotas was not higher than it turned out to be. Certainly, the favored countries’ proportion would have been much higher had they made greater use of their quota numbers, accounted for more humanitarian immigrants, and made greater use of nonquota immigrant visa programs.

  However, the fact remains that the 1924 Act still achieved its aims to the extent that overall European immigration from the countries it favored predominated. While from 1900 to 1909, such countries accounted for only 24 percent of total European immigration, they accounted for 68 percent from 1925 to 1968. While in 1920, 834,964 fewer immigrants from the favored countries resided in America than from the disfavored countries, from 1925 to 1968, 1,561,451 more immigrants arrived from the favored countries than from the disfavored ones. Additionally, year after year, immigrants residing in the U.S. in 1920 would have died or emigrated.

  So, why didn't immigrants from the favored countries catch up and surpass those from the disfavored ones? Relative emigration levels of prior immigrants do not seem to have been a factor. And, surely, the mortality rate of immigrants from the favored countries was not significantly higher than that from the disfavored ones. We are thus left with a fascinating conundrum.

Introduction

Last May marked the 100^th anniversary of the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1924 (1924 Act). This epochal legislation ushered in a four-decade-long pause in mass immigration. Immigration averaged 820,239 a year during the period from 1900 to 1909, and while it fell to an average of 634,738 during the period from 1910 to 1919 (as a consequence of World War One’s disruption of migration), noted sociologist and demographer E.P. Hutchinson wrote that “By the close of the war in 1918, it became apparent from consular reports and other sources that a new and greater wave of immigration from Europe was in prospect, limited only by the carrying capacity of transatlantic shipping once peacetime travel facilities were restored.”¹ In reaction, Congress passed and Presidents Warren G. Harding and then Calvin Coolidge signed into law the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 (1921 Act) and the 1924 Act. The 1921 Act set an immigration ceiling of 356,995 a year, though some countries and categories of immigrants were exempt from the ceiling, and the 1924 Act set an interim annual ceiling of 164,667 and a subsequent permanent annual ceiling of 153,714 (with slight modifications over the ensuing years), again with some countries and categories of immigrants exempt.

Not only did the Acts dramatically reduce immigration levels to the U.S., they also established within their numerical ceilings country-by-country quotas. A month before the 1924 Act’s enactment, a New York Times headline announced “AMERICA OF THE MELTING POT COMES TO END” and that the Act’s “Chief Aim” (according to Senate bill author David Reed (R-Penn.)) was to “Preserve Racial Type as It Exists Here Today”. Recently, Muzaffar Chishti and Julia Gelatt have written for the Migration Policy Institute that:

The Immigration Act of 1924 shaped the U.S. population over the course of the 20th century, greatly restricting immigration and ensuring that arriving immigrants were mostly from Northern and Western Europe … [and] played a key role in ending the previous era of largely unrestricted immigration. Its numerical limits on annual arrivals and use of national-origins quotas, aided by Great Depression-era restrictions, limited religious, ethnic, and racial diversity, and sharply reduced the size of the country’s foreign-born population for four decades … . The 1924 act achieved its goals of drastically curtailing immigration and shifting origins back to Northern and Western Europe.

Chishti and Gelatt concluded that “The 1924 act achieved its goals of drastically curtailing immigration and shifting origins back to Northern and Western Europe.” Nancy Ordover has similarly concluded that “the national origin quota has largely been viewed as a deliberate and successful attempt to keep out those who were not Anglo Saxon or Nordic”.²

Chishti, Gelatt, and Ordover express the conventional wisdom about the effects of the 1924 Act. Surprisingly, however, this conventional wisdom is in substantial part incorrect.

The Quotas

The Emergency Quota Act of 1921

The 1921 Act provided that:

[T]he number of aliens of any nationality who may be admitted … to the [U.S.] in any fiscal year shall be limited to 3 per cent[] of the number of foreign born persons of such nationality [determined by country of birth] resident in the [U.S.] as determined by the … census of 1910.

These numerical limitations did not apply to certain categories of aliens, including those:

• “visiting the [U.S.] as tourists or temporarily for business or pleasure”;

• “from countries immigration from which is regulated in accordance with treaties or agreements relating solely to immigration [referring to Japan]”;

• “from the … Asiatic barred zone”;

• “who have resided continuously for at least one year immediately preceding the time of their admission … in … Canada … Cuba … Mexico, countries of Central or South America, or adjacent islands”; and

• “under the age of eighteen who are children of citizens of the [U.S.].”

In addition, while aliens “returning from a temporary visit abroad” and “professional actors, artists, lecturers, singers, nurses, ministers of any religious denomination, professors for colleges or seminaries, aliens belonging to any recognized learned profession, or aliens employed as domestic servants” were counted against the quotas prior to the quotas being reached each year, they could still be admitted after the relevant quota was exhausted (“notwithstanding [that] the maximum number of aliens of the same nationality … shall have entered the [U.S.]”).

Further:

[P]reference shall be given so far as possible to the wives, parents, brothers, sisters, children under eighteen years of age, and fiancees, (1) of citizens of the [U.S.], (2) of aliens now in the [U.S.] who have applied for citizenship in the manner provided by law, or (3) of persons eligible to [U.S.] citizenship who served in the military or naval forces of the [U.S.] at any time [during America’s participation in WWI], and have been separated from such forces under honorable conditions.

The Act specified that it would continue in force until June 30, 1922 (the end of fiscal year 1922). It was subsequently extended until June 30, 1924.

The Immigration Act of 1924

The 1924 Act established new quotas. For the first few years following enactment, the annual quota for any nationality (based on country of birth) was “2 per cent[] of the number of foreign born individuals of such nationality resident in continental [U.S.] as determined by the … census of 1890, but the minimum quota of any nationality shall be 100”. Thereafter, beginning in fiscal year 1928 (beginning on July 1, 1927), the annual quota was to be “a number which bears the same ratio to 150,000 as the number of inhabitants in continental [U.S.] in 1920 having that national origin [by birth or ancestry] … bears to the number of inhabitants in continental [U.S.] in 1920, but the minimum quota of any nationality shall be 100”. The Act clarified that “Such [quota] determination shall not be made by tracing the ancestors or descendants of particular individuals, but shall be based upon statistics of immigration and emigration, together with rates of increase of population as shown by successive decennial [U.S.] censuses, and such other data as may be found to be reliable.”

The Act also provided that “No alien ineligible to citizenship [generally referring to persons from Asia] shall be admitted” as a quota immigrant.

As with the 1921 Act, the 1924 Act established categories of immigrants outside the quotas, including:

• “the unmarried child under 18 years of age, or the wife[ later amended to include the husband], of a citizen of the [U.S.]”;

• “[a lawful permanent resident] returning from a temporary visit abroad”;

• “[an alien] born in … Canada … Mexico … Cuba … Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Canal Zone, or an independent country of Central or South America, and his wife, and his unmarried children under 18 years of age, if accompanying or following to join”;

• “[an alien] who continuously for at least two years immediately preceding the time of his application for admission … has been, and who seeks to enter … solely for the purpose of, carrying on the vocation of minister of any religious denomination, or professor, or a college, academy, seminary, or university; and his wife, and his unmarried children under 18 years of age; if accompanying or following to join”; and

• “a bona fide student at least 15 years of age and who seeks to enter the [U.S.] solely for the purpose of study at an accredited school, college, academy, seminary, or university, particularly designated by him and approved by the Secretary of Labor.”

The 1924 Act also established preferences within the quotas:

In the issuance of … visas to quota immigrants preference shall be given:

(1) To a quota immigrant who is the unmarried child under 21 years of age, the father, the mother, the husband, or the wife, of a citizen of the [U.S.] who is 21 years of age or over; and

(2) To a quota immigrant who is skilled in agriculture, and his wife, and his dependent children under the age of 16 years, if accompanying or following to join.

However, the utilization of the preferences “shall not in the case of quota immigrants of any nationality exceed 50 per cent[] of the annual quota for such nationality”.

The effective date of the national origins quotas was postponed to July 1, 1928, by the Act of March 4, 1927, and to July 1, 1929 by the Act of March 31, 1928.

Finally, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 simplified the quota formula to read: “The annual quota of any quota area shall be one-sixth of 1 per cent[] of the number of inhabitants in the continental [U.S.] in 1920, which … shall be the same number heretofore determined under … the Immigration Act of 1924, attributable by national origin to such quota area”.

Why Did the Basis for the 1924 Act’s Quotas Shift from Measuring the Foreign-Born to Measuring National Origins?

Prof. Daniel Tichenor at the University of Oregon has explained that:

[U.S. Representative Albert Johnson (R-Wash.), Chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization] and the immigration subcommittee crafted legislation in 1924 that revised the 1921 quota system … . In the Senate, David Reed … championed a different quota scheme, one that calculated quotas not on the composition of the foreign-born population at a given census but on the “national origins” of the American population as a whole … .

Reed and Johnson ultimately agreed upon a compromise between their respective quota plans. … [It] stipulated that Johnson’s 1890 census formula was to operate until July 1927, after which Reed’s national origins quotas were to take effect.³

Sen. Reed explained the rationale for relying on “national origins”, writing in the New York Times on April 27, 1924, a month before enactment of the 1924 Act, that:

The method of calculating quotas under our temporary law of 1921 was … unfair to the native-born American, since he was ignored in the ascertainment of the quotas, which were based exclusively upon the census of foreign-born residents. In my judgement, the argument is unanswerable that there was no justice in allowing the unnaturalized alien resident to be represented in calculating the quota of his country while the native-born American was ignored.

This new method does away with all of this unfairness, and each of us, American or alien, native born or foreign born, has an equal representation in the quotas.

He had taken to the Senate floor on April 9, 1924 to “explain with the utmost of brevity what this ‘national origins’ method is”:

• [T]he total immigration shall be whatever figure is fixed by Congress … . [I]t would apportion that quota exactly in accordance with the national origin of every man, woman, and child in America today according to the 1920 census.⁴

  The trouble with the present system … is that it divides the quota according to the foreign born of 1910. In other words, the 1910 basis makes this apportionment of the quota: It gives 48 per cent to northwestern Europe and 39 per cent to southeastern Europe … .

  That distribution is the reason for the protest by the American born against the 1910 basis. … [I]n [our] country [the] actual population has its origin as 74 is to 13. Out of every 87 Americans today, 74 come from northwestern European stocks and 13 from southeastern European stocks; and it is because the quota does not truly reflect the whole population of the country that complaint is made against the 1910 basis.

• [T]he southeastern European peoples — the Italians and the Poles and the others — resent the 1890 basis because they say it is a discrimination against them; and when we compare the foreign born in 1890 with the whole population of the [U.S.] today we see that 1890 is slightly a discrimination against them, because it allows them only 8 per cent of the quota, whereas they and their descendants constitute 13 per cent of our population. So there, you see, they have the same ground of objection to 1890 that the northwestern European has to 1910; and about all that can be said between the two methods is that the 1890 method is closer to our present population in its origins than is 1910, although it is not exactly the same.

• The idea of the[] national origins amendment is that we will establish a method against which there cannot be the slightest accusation of discrimination; that if … we can determine the national origins of all our people, foreign born and native born, then the fairest thing and the wisest thing to do is to make our immigration an exact cross section of our present population.

• As far as it is possible to do it, it is a cross section of the present population of America. It is defensible to any group. It discriminates against nobody. It merely recognizes the fact that we native-born Americans are as much entitled to be considered in the calculations of the quotas as are the people who came here a year or two ago. It is all wrong to base our quotas on the foreign born, entirely wrong. There is no ·reason why they should be so based. If we are going to base them on any count of any group of our population, they had better be based on our native born; but for the sake of fairness we treat all alike, and we base our quotas on our native born, like ourselves, on our foreign born who are naturalized, and we even include the foreign born who are not naturalized.

Could quotas based on national origins actually be calculated? Reed argued on the Senate floor on April 9th that they could:

• [W]here it is that I get the figures which furnish the basis of the statement that 74 per cent of our present population has its national origin in northwestern Europe[?]… [W]e have a study by the Census Bureau, which has determined that 47,000,000 out of the 94,000,000 of whites who are here today are descended from our original population of 3,900,000 who were tabulated in the 1790 census.

• [F]or the first 30 years the records are unofficial … but all authorities are agreed that immigration was approximately 300,000 persons in those first three decades, and that it all came from northwestern Europe.

• What I say is that the population of 3,900,000 persons which appeared in our original census of 1790 is assumed by the Census Bureau, after a careful calculation, to be represented in our present population by 47,000,000 persons. Every one of the 47,000,000 may have the blood of some Greek who came in half a century ago. The Census Bureau can not answer for that, and it does not try to. It is perfectly obvious that in trying to make a separation of our Nation according to its origins it is a physical impossibility to go around the country today and determine the pedigree of every American citizen; but it is perfectly reasonable to say that of two people who are descended, each of them one-half from colonial ancestors, they represent two half units in that computation. That is what I mean … .

  [S]ince 1820 we know exactly how many people have come, and we know exactly from what country they have come; and it is possible by the same method, knowing the rate of increase of the population in each decade, to tell almost exactly how many people there are in the population of the [U.S.] today whose ancestors or themselves came from northwestern Europe.

• I admit that I am no authority on immigration, and that my [word] is no proof that this is a practicable method; but I want to refer you to the words of one of our colleagues who is an authority on immigration — the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Henry Cabot Lodge (R-Mass.)], who served on the Immigration Committee of the Senate from 1895 to 1917. He was chairman of it twice. He has studied this subject for nearly half a century; and if there is one man in the [U.S.] who today is an authority on immigration, it is the senior Senator from Massachusetts. He had to be absent from the Senate this week, and before he left be rose and spoke on the question of this national origins amendment … .

  [W]hat he said went directly to the only objection that I ·have heard offered against this method of apportioning quota. It is argued that it can not be done … that we can not determine the national origin. Here is what [he] said about it:

  The purpose of [the amendment] … is to get a basis for the quota which shall not give rise to the criticisms now made that the basis of the census of 1890 discriminates against certain races and that, in a lesser degree, the basis of the census of 1910 would discriminate against another class of races. [It] would rest on the distribution of races in the year 1920 or at the present moment. It will take some time to make the calculations, but they certainly can be made. I have examined with care the computations so far made and am convinced that it is possible to ascertain the division of races in this country with sufficient correctness. If such a basis is adopted. there can be no question then of discrimination, because it will treat all races alike on the basis of their actual proportion of the existing population. I think it is of very great importance to adopt this amendment for that precise purpose and to allow time for the officials of the Census Bureau and other experts to make the necessary calculations.

Sen. Thomas Sterling (R-S.D.) wanted it clarified that “we do not confuse now this question of racial group with nationality”, stating that “The racial distribution to which the Senator's colleague referred after all means nationality, as so many would come from Germany, for example, rather than Germans. Is not that the idea which [Senator Reed] has in mind…?” Reed responded that “The Senator is exactly right. We have to base it on nationality, because racial distinctions are impossible.” Sterling then asked “But in certain countries is not the racial group quite distinct, or, to put it in another way, is there not a plain, commonly recognized distinction between racial groups, so that the number that might come from any particular country could be apportioned among the several racial groups?” Reed responded that “That would be a further refinement to this that we might some day adopt, but I do not think it is practicable to adopt it now.” Sterling then asked “Would it not he practicable with reference, for example, to the three countries, Russia, Rumania, and Poland?”, to which Reed responded that “It might be.”

Why the delayed implementation of the national origin quotas? Reed explained in his piece in the New York Times that “The reason that the national origins method of quota determination is postponed for three years is to permit a careful calculation to be made by the Census Bureau which will do no injustice to any of the nationalities involved.” Muzaffar Chishti and Julia Gelatt have noted that “Developing a methodology to count the origins of U.S.-born people was complicated and contentious — not least because immigrants from different countries had children together, and also because national boundaries abroad were shifting — delaying the new formula’s implementation until 1929.”

Did the National Origins Quotas Achieve Their Desired Results? A Story in Nine Tables

What did Albert Johnson and David Reed expect to be the results of the 1924 Act? Reed wrote in his piece in the New York Times that “It is true that 75 percent of our immigration will hereafter come from Northwestern Europe: but it is fair that it should do so, because 75 percent of us who are now here owe our origin to immigrants from these same countries.” Tichenor has written that Madison Grant, a leader of the Immigration Restriction League, “assured Johnson that the new plan would reserve 84 percent of the immigration slots for northern and western Europeans and 12 percent for southern and eastern Europeans”.⁵

Did the Act 1924 achieve these results, which we have long been taught that it did? And did the Act create “a more homogeneous nation”, which Reed assured the readers of the New York Times that it would? To answer these questions, I examined U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security data. In Appendix B to this report, I list and provide hyperlinks to the data sources. If you would like to, please peruse them at your leisure.

Table 1. National Origins Quotas – Country-By-Country Impact

In Table 1, I rank European countries according to how their national origins quotas under the 1924 Act compare to their average annual migration levels to the U.S. from 1900 to 1909. I divide the countries into two categories — “favored” and “disfavored” — according to whether their quotas represent more than 10 percent of their average annual migration, or 10 percent or less.

Preliminaries

Let me mention six provisos:

1. As E.P. Hutchinson noted, the quotas “were more restrictive than appeared from the allowable total of quota immigration, for … unused quota numbers could not be reallocated” to other countries.⁶
2. Some discrepancies will arise because immigration totals are based on the country of last residence while the quotas are based on the country of birth.
3. I used the decade from 1900 to 1909 as the baseline rather than 1910 to 1919 because immigration in the latter period was disrupted by World War I (while the table does include data for the 1910-19 period). As mentioned, European immigration averaged 820,239 a year from 1900 to 1909 and 634,738 from 1910 to 1919. Within the latter decade, immigration levels fell to 110,618 in 1918 and 141,132 in 1919.
4. I did not include every European country, but only the ones for which data is available. For that reason, the table is underinclusive, but only slightly, since government statistics for the decade from 1900 to 1909 only list 514 immigrants from “other” European countries (and for the decade from 1910-1919 only 6,527).
5. The table is also overinclusive because national boundaries have changed over the years and certain nations only achieved independence in the midst of the period being analyzed. For instance, DHS noted that “Poland [was] included in Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Russia from 1899 to 1919.” In order to give a sense of the impact of the quotas on European Poles, I also included data for immigrants of Polish ethnicity who migrated from Europe, including from those regions of Austria, Hungary, the Austro-Hungarian empire, and Germany that now constitute the nation of Poland. I did the same for Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic), Finland, Lithuania, and the former Yugoslavia (now Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Republic of North Macedonia). However, I do not include these “ethnic immigration figures” (designated by *) in the aggregated total figures for all “disfavored” European countries and for all European countries.
6. A year represents a federal fiscal year, which in the period being analyzed ran from July 1 to June 30. Thus, fiscal year 1930 represents the period from July 1, 1929 to June 30, 1930.

Further methodological notes are included in Appendix B.

With these preliminaries out of the way, let the analysis begin.

The overall national origins quota of 148,727 for the countries included in the table represents 20 percent of average yearly migration from those countries to the U.S. from 1900 to 1909.

“Favored” Countries

The country that made out the best is Great Britain/the United Kingdom, as it is the only one to have a quota higher than its average yearly migration to the U.S. (1900-09) — 140 percent (keeping in mind that Northern Ireland, and thus the United Kingdom, was not created until 1921).

The runners up are countries whose quotas represent more than half of their average yearly migration to the U.S. (1900-09) — Germany at 79 percent, the Netherlands at 74 percent, and Ireland (though Northern Ireland was included in the UK’s quota) and Switzerland at 52 percent each. I classify all of these countries as “favored” by the quotas. I also classify as “favored” all other European countries whose quotas were greater than 10 percent of their average yearly migration to the U.S. — France at 46 percent, Belgium at 35 percent, Denmark at 19 percent, Sweden at 14 percent, and Norway at 13 percent.

The favored countries’ national origins quotas represent, on average, 69 percent of their average yearly migration levels (1900-09).

“Disfavored” Countries

I classify as “disfavored” those countries whose quotas were 10 percent or less of their average yearly migration to the U.S. (1900-09): Spain at 10 percent, Poland at 8 percent (keeping in mind that this is a constructed percentage based on Poles as a “race or people”), Portugal at 7 percent, Czechoslovakia at 7 percent (a constructed percentage), Romania at 5 percent, Finland at 4 percent (a constructed percentage), Bulgaria at 3 percent, Hungary at 3 percent (a constructed percentage), Italy at 3 percent, Greece at 2 percent, Russia/the U.S.S.R. (established in 1922) at 2 percent, and Yugoslavia at 2 percent (a constructed percentage).

I also included Lithuania as a disfavored country, giving it a constructed percentage of 2 percent based on the 1924 Act’s interim quota, as Lithuania was not given its own quota under the Act’s permanent quota. I also included Austria as a disfavored country. As accurate Austrian immigration figures are not available for the decade from 1900 to 1909 (it being part of the Austro-Hungarian empire), I gave it a constructed percentage of 2 percent based on Austrian immigration from 1910 to 1919.

Again, I do not include countries with constructed percentages in the aggregated total figures for all disfavored European countries and for all European countries. However, immigrants from these countries are still accounted for in the totals, since they were recorded in the figures for other countries (such as Austria-Hungary).

The disfavored countries’ quotas average only 3 percent of their average yearly migration levels (1900-09).

“Favored” and “Disfavored” Countries

As noted, the 1924 Act’s national origins quotas represent 20 percent of average yearly immigration from the included European countries (1900-09) — 69 percent for the favored countries and 3 percent for the disfavored countries. The 1924 Act’s interim quotas represent 21 percent of average yearly immigration (1900-09) — 78 percent for the favored countries and 3 percent for the disfavored countries, while the 1921 Act’s quotas represent 49 percent of average yearly immigration (1900-09) — 119 percent for the favored countries and 20 percent for the disfavored countries.

The 1924 Act’s overall national origins quota is 7 percent lower than its interim quota. Some favored countries saw dramatic increases between the two quota systems — Belgium’s quota increased by 155 percent, the UK’s increased by 93 percent, and the Netherlands’s increased by 91 percent. Others saw dramatic decreases — Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Germany saw their quotas decrease by 65, 63, 58, and 49 percent respectively. While there were equally wild swings among the disfavored countries, the absolute numbers involved are often quite low. For instance, Greece’s quota rose by 207 percent, but in absolute numbers it increased by only 207 immigrant slots a year — from 100 to 307.

Overall, the quotas of the favored countries decreased by 11 percent from interim to national origins while the quotas of the disfavored countries increased by 20 percent. At first blush, this does not seem to make sense, given the professed goals of the 1924 Act. However, the result most likely reflects the facts that the Act’s authors 1) had to pick the particular census that taken as a whole yielded the results most conducive to their policy and public relations goals, and 2) did not know exactly what the permanent quotas would turn out to be, as they were yet to be calculated by the Census Bureau.

Table 2. U.S. Residents Born in European Countries, 1890-1970

At first glance, it appears that the 1924 Act’s national origins quotas achieved their desired effect. The immigration quotas of the favored countries represented on average 69 percent of the countries’ average yearly immigration (1900-09), while the quotas of the disfavored countries represented just 3 percent of their average yearly immigration. The quotas of the favored countries represent 84 percent of the overall quota for all the European countries represented in table 1 — just about what Madison Grant had predicted (though Grant’s 84 percent actually represented 87.5 percent of purely European immigration).

But did they really?

Let’s look at the number of immigrants born in European countries and residing in the United States in 1920 as compared to the numbers in 1960 and 1970. The data is startling. According to the 1920 census, immigrants from the favored countries represented 46 percent of all European immigrants then residing in the U.S., while those from disfavored countries represented 54 percent. By 1960, after three and a half decades of national origins quotas designed to ensure that most European immigrants came from Northwestern Europe, immigrants from the favored countries represented only 41 percent of all European immigrants residing in the U.S., and by 1970, after four and a half decades of such national origin quotas, immigrants from the favored countries represented only 42 percent. How could this possibly be the case? How could the proportion of European immigrants from the favored countries have actually decreased — by five and four percentage points, respectively — after decades of immigration quotas engineered to boost their representation?

Looking at it another way, the total number of immigrants born in the favored European countries and residing in the U.S. fell by 46 percent from 1920 to 1960, while the total number born in the disfavored European countries fell by 34 percent. The corresponding figures for 1920 and 1970 are drops of 57 percent for the favored countries and 49 percent for the disfavored countries. How could the number of immigrants born in the favored countries drop by a greater percentage than the number of immigrants born in the disfavored countries?

If the favored countries had merely kept pace with the disfavored countries in the sense of maintaining in 1960 and 1970 the same percentage diminution of the number of their immigrants residing in the U.S. in 1920 as had the disfavored countries, 3,624,216 immigrants from the favored countries would have resided in the U.S. in 1960 — 668,516 more than measured by the 1960 census, and 2,821,869 residing in the U.S. in 1970, 458,608 more than measured by the 1970 census.

If the favored countries had outperformed the disfavored countries by 10 percentage points, about 4,200,000 immigrants from the favored countries would have resided in the U.S. in 1960 — about 1,500,000 more than measured by the 1960 census and just about equaling the number residing in the U.S. from the disfavored countries in 1960, and about 3,350,000 would have resided in the U.S. in 1970, about a million more than revealed by the 1970 census, just about equaling the number from the disfavored countries in 1970.

What can account for the unexpectedly low number of immigrants from the favored European countries residing in the U.S. in 1960 and 1970? I will now explore some possible explanations.

Table 3: Utilization of the Immigration Quotas — Country-By-Country

Could the reason be that the favored countries did not take advantage of their allotted quotas to the extent that the disfavored countries did? This was certainly not the case during the first five years of operation of the 1924 Act, as both the favored and disfavored European countries used most of their available interim quota numbers. During fiscal years 1925 to 1929, the favored countries used an average of 92 percent of their quota numbers while the disfavored countries used 96 percent.

But then came implementation of the national origins quotas in July 1929. And just a few months later in October came the stock market crash that heralded a worldwide Great Depression. And then came World War II. Both the Depression and the war acted to dramatically cut immigration levels to the U.S. Average yearly immigration levels from Europe fell from 157,881 in 1925-29 to 43,450 from 1930 to 1941 to 6,631 from 1942 to 1945. From 1930 to 1946, the favored countries made use of an average of only 17 percent of their quota numbers while the disfavored countries used 42 percent.

Then came the end of World War II and an era of postwar prosperity for the United States. From 1947 to the termination of the national origins quotas at the end of 1968, the favored countries made use of an average of 51 percent of their quota numbers while the disfavored countries made use of 158 percent.

Wait a second. How could a country make use of more than 100 percent of its quota numbers? The answer is that under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 as enacted:

Upon the issuance of an immigration visa to any eligible displaced person ... the consular officer shall use a quota number from the immigration quota of the country of the alien's nationality ... for the fiscal year then current at the time or, if no such quota number is available for said fiscal year, in that event for the first succeeding fiscal year in which a quota number if available.

However, a provision in the Act of September 11, 1957, terminated the required quota deductions as of July 1, 1957.

In any event, during the period 1930-68, the favored countries utilized an average of 37 percent of their quota numbers while the disfavored countries utilized 107 percent.

What would have been the impact had the favored countries used their entire quotas during the 1930-68 period? Had they done so, 3,090,477 additional immigrants would have arrived from those countries. However, it can be argued that it was completely outside the realm of possibility for the favored countries to have fully used their quotas during the 1930-46 period of worldwide depression and world war, especially given that the disfavored countries were only able to use 42 percent of their quota numbers during this period. Thus, I evaluated the impact had the favored countries used their entire quotas during the 1947-68 period of postwar prosperity. Had the favored countries used their entire quotas during this period, 1,330,956 additional immigrants would have arrived.

How might such increased numbers of immigrants from the favored countries have impacted the number of immigrants from those countries residing in the U.S. in 1970? In a scenario where two-thirds of the additional 1930-68 immigrants were still residing in the U.S. in 1970 and measured by the 1970 census, the total number residing in the U.S. from these countries would have risen to 4,423,579, representing a 20 percent drop from 1920 compared to the 49 percent decline experienced by the disfavored countries. Under such a scenario, the number of immigrants from the favored countries in 1970 would have actually greatly surpassed the number residing in the U.S from the disfavored countries (3,249,980).

Had two-thirds of the additional 1947-68 immigrants from the favored countries still resided in the U.S. in 1970, the number residing in the U.S. would have risen to 3,250,565, representing a 41 percent drop from 1920 compared to the disfavored countries’ 49 percent, and would have slightly exceeded the number residing in the U.S. from the disfavored countries.

Alternately, assuming that half of the additional 1930-68 immigrants from the favored countries were still residing in the U.S. in 1970, the total number from these countries residing in the U.S. in 1970 would have risen to 3,908,500, representing a 29 percent drop from 1920 compared to the disfavored countries’ 49 percent decline, and would have actually greatly surpassed the number residing in the U.S. from the disfavored countries.

Had half of the additional 1947-68 immigrants from the favored countries still resided in the U.S. in 1970, the total number residing in the U.S. would have risen to 3,028,739, representing a 45 percent drop from 1920 compared to the disfavored countries’ 49 percent decline, but would not have matched the number residing in the U.S. from the disfavored countries.

Thus, had the favored countries made full use of their quota numbers during the 1930-68 period, the number of immigrants from those countries residing in the U.S. in 1970 likely would have surpassed the number of those from the disfavored countries. Had the favored countries made full use of their quota numbers during the 1947-68 period of prosperity, the number of immigrants from those countries residing in the U.S. in 1970 might have exceeded the number of those from the disfavored countries.

Of course, the favored countries did not use anywhere near 100 percent of their quota numbers following 1929. We can speculate as to the reasons for this, but the postwar prosperity they experienced likely was a large contributing factor. Not that the authors of the 1924 Act could have anticipated these countries’ decreased demand (other than possibly in regards to the United Kingdom, whose national origins quota was 140 percent of its average yearly immigration from 1900 to 1909).

Table 4. Displaced Persons/Refugees — Country-By-Country

In addition to quota usage, could a reason for the unexpectedly low number of immigrants from the favored European countries residing in the U.S. in 1960 and 1970 be the large number of humanitarian immigrants (displaced persons, refugees, and other beneficiaries) who arrived following World War II (largely outside of the national origin quotas)? As E.P. Hutchinson concluded:

[T]he nonquota total was ... swelled by various classes of refugees who came in free of quota under special postwar legislation. The limits set by the [1924 Act] were thus not absolute upper limits on all immigration, and over the years they became less and less limiting as Congress created more and more nonquota classes.⁷

What does the data reveal? Overall, from 1946 to 1968, 879,016 immigrants were admitted under various humanitarian programs (an average of 38,218 a year), including 705,520 Europeans (an average of 30,675 a year). These immigrants represented 15 percent of total worldwide immigration (5,969,338) over this period, and 25 percent of total European immigration (2,805,546). Put another way, these displaced persons and refugees increased immigration from Europe by 34 percent over what it otherwise would have been during this post-World War II period.

Of the European immigrants admitted under the humanitarian programs, only 18 percent came from favored countries (with Germany accounting for 80 percent of the favored countries’ total), while 82 percent came from disfavored countries (with Poland accounting for 28 percent of the disfavored countries’ total). This gap of 449,598 immigrants made a dramatic difference in the proportion of European immigration from the favored countries versus that of the disfavored countries over the 1925-68 period. During that period, the favored countries accounted for 68 percent of total European immigration while the disfavored countries accounted for 31 percent (see table 7). Excluding beneficiaries of the humanitarian programs, the share of European migration accounted for by the favored countries rises to 80 percent, while the disfavored countries’ share drops to 20 percent. This is right in line with the expectations of the 1924 Act’s authors (who, of course, could not have anticipated the humanitarian directives and legislation issued or enacted after enactment). However, the total immigration percentages excluding humanitarian immigrants are only approximate, as European migration totals are based on country of last permanent residence, while the humanitarian program totals are based on country of birth.

The relevant humanitarian programs are described in Appendix A.

Table 5. Quota Immigration as a Percentage of All Immigration — Year-by-Year; and Table 6. Quota Immigrants as a Percentage of All Immigrants — Country-By-Country

Could another reason for the unexpectedly low number of immigrants from the favored European countries residing in the U.S. in 1960 and 1970 be that many European immigrants (even putting aside humanitarian immigrants) came to the U.S. outside of the national origins quotas?

Over the 1925 to 1965 period, immigrants arriving under the quotas represented less than half — 45 percent — of all immigrants worldwide, and 79 percent of all European immigrants (excluding years for which data is not available). While 70 percent of nonquota immigrants from around the world came from the Western Hemisphere, they would not have impacted the balance of immigration between favored and disfavored European countries.

Did the authors of the 1924 Act realize the outsized influence that nonquota immigration would have? Indeed they did. Sen. Reed stated on the Senate floor on April 9, 1924, that:

The Johnson bill allows what is called a class of nonquota immigrants, and in our committee hearings we asked Representative Johnson how many nonquota immigrants and exceptions of that kind be thought would come in. He admitted that there was no way of making an exact estimate, but said that, in his judgment, the number of nonquota immigrants would be as great as the number of quota immigrants; so that when we are estimating the amount of immigration under the Johnson bill we ought in fact to multiply the figures by two.

In deriving my results, I made two adjustments to the government data. First, I excluded from nonquota immigration the nonrelevant categories of resident aliens returning to the U.S. and foreign students. As the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) explained in 1951: “An immigrant is defined in statistics of the Service as an alien admitted for permanent residence. … Therefore, students who are admitted for temporary periods and returning resident aliens who have once been counted as immigrants are included with nonimmigrants”.

Second, I excluded humanitarian immigrants created by statute or executive action after the enactment of the 1924 Act (see Appendix A), as the authors of the Act could not have anticipated these programs and they distort measurement of the effects of the Act as enacted. E.P. Hutchison concluded that:

On balance ... the [1924 Act] w[as] considerably less restrictive than appears on the surface, for although [it] limited broad classes of immigration, [it] established certain quota-free classes that permitted large numbers of immigrants to enter. Congress was indeed of a restrictionist disposition when the [1924 Act] was passed but made concessions to facilitate the entry of alien relatives of citizens, and gradually became more lenient in granting quota exemptions to further classes of relatives, refugees, and other hardship or deserving classes of aliens.⁸

What nonquota immigrant categories did European immigrants rely on the most? In 1930, the spouses and unmarried children under 21 of U.S. citizens (born in quota countries) constituted 95 percent of European nonquota immigrants, as did 89 percent in 1957, and 76 percent in 1965.

There appears to be a dramatic difference in the extent to which immigrants from favored versus disfavored European countries made use of nonquota immigrant visas, with immigrants from disfavored countries utilizing these programs to a much greater extent than did immigrants from favored countries. I reviewed data for three years — 1930, 1957, and 1965. Excluding humanitarian immigrants, in 1930, 98 percent of immigrants from favored countries arrived as quota immigrants, as did only 45 percent from disfavored countries. In 1957, the figures were 88 percent as compared to 59 percent, and in 1965 they were 92 percent as compared to 60 percent.

What would have been the impact had immigrants from favored countries relied to a greater extent on nonquota visas? In order to increase the proportion of immigrants from a favored country utilizing nonquota categories from 10 percent to 40 percent would require a 50 percent increase in overall immigration (all nonquota visas) from that country. For example, taking a year in which 9,000 quota immigrants and 1,000 nonquota immigrants arrived from a country — 10 percent nonquota immigrants — an additional 5,000 nonquota immigrants would be needed to raise the proportion of nonquota immigrants to 40 percent.

Had the number of immigrants from favored countries risen by 50 percent during the 1925-68 period, immigration from those countries would have increased from 2,829,876 (see table 7) to 4,244,814, an increase of 1,414,938. How might such increased numbers of immigrants have impacted the number of immigrants from the favored countries residing in the U.S. in 1970? Assuming that two-thirds of the additional 1925-68 immigrants were still residing in the U.S. in 1970 and measured by the 1970 census, the total number residing in the U.S. from these countries would have risen to 3,306,553, representing a 40 percent drop from 1920 compared to the 49 percent decline experienced by the disfavored countries. Under such a scenario, the number of immigrants from the favored countries in 1970 would have actually surpassed the number residing in the U.S from the disfavored countries (3,249,980).

Had half of the additional 1925-68 immigrants from the favored countries still resided in the U.S. in 1970, the total number residing in the U.S. from these countries would have risen to 3,070,730, representing a 44 percent drop from 1920 compared to the disfavored countries’ 49 percent decline, and not matching the number residing in the U.S. from the disfavored countries.

Table 7. Share of European Immigrants — Country-By-Country

What effect did the 1924 Act’s national origins quotas have on overall immigration levels from Europe during the 1925 to 1968 period? From 1900 to 1909, the favored countries accounted for 24 percent of overall European immigration, while the disfavored countries accounted for 76 percent (including the Austro-Hungarian empire rather than Austria and Hungary). In 1922-24, under the 1921 Act’s quotas, the favored and disfavored countries achieved parity — the proportion of European immigration represented by the favored countries rose to 49 percent and the proportion from disfavored countries dropped to 50 percent. Then, from 1925 to 1968, under the 1924 Act’s interim and then permanent national origins quotas, the proportion of European immigration from the favored countries rose to 68 percent and the proportion from the disfavored countries dropped to 31 percent. Immigration from the favored countries did not reach the 75 percent promised by Sen. Reed, but came pretty close.

I have considered a number of reasons for why the proportion of European immigration represented by the favored countries was not higher during the era governed by the 1924 Act’s quotas. Certainly, the favored countries’ proportion would have been much higher had they made greater use of their quota numbers, had accounted for more humanitarian immigrants, and made greater use of nonquota immigration categories. However, the fact remains that overall immigration from the favored countries — quota immigration and nonquota immigration included — still greatly predominated over immigration from the disfavored countries during the 44-year period from 1925 to 1968 — 2,829,876 versus 1,268,425. So, again, what can account for the unexpectedly low number of immigrants from the favored European countries residing in the U.S. in 1960 and 1970?

Part of the reason is surely that the overall level of European immigration dropped dramatically following enactment of the 1924 Act. From 1900 to 1909, European immigration averaged 757,206 a year. From 1922 to 1924, it averaged 288,881 a year. From 1925 to 1968 it averaged 94,093 a year. Average yearly immigration levels dropped dramatically even for the favored countries — declining by 65 percent overall from the 1900-09 period to the 1925-68 period (from 181,156 to 64,315). Of course, average yearly immigration from the disfavored countries dropped by an even greater extent — by 95 percent (from 576,050 a year to 28,828 a year).

Greatly reduced European immigration meant that regardless of the proportion of European immigration represented by the favored countries, it took appreciably longer to steer the “ship” (the proportion of immigrants from favored countries versus disfavored countries residing in the U.S.) in a different direction. Still, overall immigration from the favored countries greatly outnumbered that from the disfavored countries over a period of almost half a century.

And the disfavored countries certainly had a head start — with 6,338,581 immigrants residing in the U.S. in 1920 compared to 5,503,617 immigrants from the favored countries — a lead of 834,964. Yet, over the 1925 to 1968 period, immigration levels from the favored countries exceeded immigration levels from the disfavored countries by 1,561,451 individuals, while, year after year, immigrants residing in the U.S. in 1920 would have died or emigrated. Why did not the favored countries catch up and surpass the disfavored countries?

Table 8. Immigration vs. Emigration — Country-By-Country

It is little known that a sizeable proportion of immigrants to the U.S. subsequently emigrated (at least prior to the establishment of the modern American welfare state). Between 1925 and 1939, 1,222,297 European immigrants were admitted while 514,666 prior immigrants from Europe emigrated — thus, European emigration equaled 42 percent of European immigration.

Could it be that a greater proportion of European immigrants from favored countries later emigrated than did those from disfavored countries, thus providing at least a partial explanation for the 1960 and 1970 censuses?

What do the numbers reveal? I focus on the years from 1925 to 1939 because the relative number of emigrants decreased dramatically in later years. During the 1925-39 period, an average of 34,311 Europeans emigrated a year, while during the 1940-57 period, an average of only 9,157 did.

During the 1925 to 1939 period, emigration levels of prior immigrants from disfavored countries represented a much higher percentage of these countries immigration levels than did emigration levels from the favored countries. Over that period, 861,391 European immigrants from favored countries were admitted while 238,260 prior immigrants from these countries emigrated — emigration levels thus equaling 28 percent of immigration levels. As to European immigrants from disfavored countries, 346,569 were admitted while 272,917 prior immigrants emigrated — emigration levels equaling 79 percent of immigration levels. So, it seems that differences in emigration levels by prior immigrants from the favored and disfavored countries does not help explain the 1960 and 1970 censuses. In fact, quite the opposite. The difference in emigration levels should have reduced the numbers of immigrants from disfavored countries residing in the U.S. in 1960 and 1970 to a greater extent than it would the numbers of immigrants from favored countries.

It is possible that because immigration levels were so much higher from disfavored countries than favored countries in the years prior to the 1921 and 1924 Acts (over the 1900-1919 period, approximately 9,600,000 compared to approximately 2,900,000), that the emigration levels for immigrants from the disfavored countries from 1925 to 1939 are to some extent an artifact of the pre-quota years. It is possible that large numbers of European emigrants from the U.S. during the 1925 to 1939 period had actually immigrated to the U.S. prior to the quota era.

Were 1925 to 1939 emigration levels to be an artifact, we should observe the relative number of emigrants from disfavored countries decreasing the further removed they became from the enactment of the 1924 Act. This turns out to be the case.

During the 1925 to 1929 period, emigrants from the disfavored countries represented 111 percent of immigrants from those countries, while emigrants from the favored countries represented only 17 percent of immigrants from those countries. Then, during the 1930 to 1934 period, the disfavored and favored countries showed equivalent results, with emigrants from disfavored countries representing 56 percent of immigrants from those countries, as compared to 57 percent for favored countries. Lastly, during the 1935 to 1939 period, disfavored countries fell to 35 percent and favored countries fell to 51 percent.

In any event, the absolute number of prior immigrants from disfavored countries who emigrated during the 1925 to 1939 period was greater than the number from who did so from favored countries — 272,917 compared to 238,260. So, it is not at all clear that relative emigration levels played a role to in explaining the 1960 and 1970 censuses.

Table 9. Jewish Immigration as a Percentage of European Immigration

I have written regarding a possible intent behind the national origins quotas of specifically reducing Jewish immigration levels, and regarding the fact that many European Jews murdered in the Holocaust could have escaped from the Nazis had they been allowed to immigrate to the U.S. prior to World War II. Thus, it is interesting to look at how the relative level of Jewish immigration before the implementation of the 1924 Act compares to the level following enactment.

During the 1900-09 period, worldwide Jewish immigration to the U.S. amounted to 13 percent of European immigration. Then, following the implementation of the 1924 Act’s quotas, Jewish immigration amounted to 18 percent of European immigration over the 1925-43 period (the INS stopping reporting the immigration levels of Jewish immigrants after 1943). Thus, when viewed against European immigration as a whole, Jewish immigration was actually relatively higher after the implementation of the quotas than before implementation. However, within the 1925 to 1943 period, Jewish immigration was relatively lower from 1925 to 1929 — 7 percent of European immigration — and relatively higher from 1930 to 1943 – 35 percent, reaching 66 percent from 1941 to 1942, reflecting some efforts by the executive branch to allow for more Jewish immigration within the constraints of the national origins quotas.

I should note that in the two quota era years with the highest levels of Jewish immigration, in 1939, 94 percent of 43,450 worldwide Jewish immigrants came from Europe, and in 1940, 92 percent of 36,945 Jewish immigrants did. In 1906, the year from the decade of 1900 to 1909 with the highest level of Jewish immigration, 99 percent of 153,748 worldwide Jewish immigrants came from Europe.

Conclusion

It is possible to explain, as I have tried to do, why during the era governed by the 1924 Act’s quotas the proportion of European immigration represented by immigrants from the Act’s favored countries was not higher than it turned out to be as compared to the proportion represented by immigrants from the Act’s disfavored countries.

However, the fact remains that overall immigration from the favored countries still greatly predominated over immigration from the disfavored countries during the 44 years from 1925 to 1968. So, what can account for the unexpectedly low number of immigrants from the favored European countries residing in the U.S. in 1960 and 1970? I considered and rejected emigration levels of prior immigrant as a factor. Surely, the mortality rate of immigrants from favored countries was not significantly greater than that of immigrants from disfavored countries. Thus, we are left with a fascinating conundrum.

Appendix A

• The Displaced Persons Act of 1948 (amended in 1951): From 1946 to 1968, 405,234 Europeans (by country of birth) immigrated under the Displaced Persons Act (including 53,689 German ethnics) — 57 percent of all European humanitarian immigrants during this period.

  The Act provided that during the first two fiscal years following enactment, “a number of immigration visas not to exceed two hundred and two thousand may be issued without regard to quota limitations for those years to eligible displaced persons quota immigrants”.

  The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum explains that:

  [T]he act created a very narrow official definition of a [displaced person] DP by offering assistance only to those who had reached specific countries in Allied zones of occupation. Second, it only included those who had been displaced during the war and were living temporarily in DP camps during the six months immediately after the war's end. Third, the act required people to receive medical clearance and secure sponsorship from an American citizen in order to come to the US.

  President Truman worried that the DP Act imposed too many limitations. Many Jewish survivors had been displaced before the war had even begun, and the act's provisions often made it easier for non-Jewish DPs to immigrate … .

  [T]he … Act was revised to extend the required date of residence in a DP camp from 1946 to 1948. The amendment broadened the definition of Displaced Persons to include German citizens. It also introduced more flexibility into the nationality quota, which had originally excluded many Jewish survivors and displaced people from Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe.

• The Refugee Relief Act of 1953: 171,689 Europeans immigrated under the Refugee Relief Act through 1968, representing 24 percent of all European humanitarian admissions during the 1946-68 period.

  In 1970, John Speer, an attorney with the Office of Special Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, explained that:

  The purpose of this Act, which expired on December 31, 1956, was to expedite admission to the [U.S.] of refugees escaping from “Iron Curtain” countries into free Europe … . Admission, unlike the [Displaced Persons] Act, was outside quota limitations …. . Defined beneficiaries placed within this Act included “German expellees”, “escapees in the German Federal Republic, Berlin and Austria”, “escapees in NATO and other countries”, “Polish war veterans in the British Isles”, “Italian refugees”, “Italian relatives”, “Greek relatives”, “Netherlands refugees”, “Netherlands relatives”, “Far East refugees (non-Asian)”, “Far East refugees (Asian)”, “Chinese refugees”, “Palestinian refugees”, “Orphans” and “Spouses and unmarried minor sons and daughters” of the aforenamed beneficiaries.

• President Truman’s Directive of December 22, 1945: 39,802 Europeans immigrated under the Directive through 1968, representing 6 percent of all European humanitarian immigrants during the 1946-68 period.

  John Speer explained that the directive “was intended to expedite immigration of displaced persons and refugees, within established immigration quotas”.

• The Act of July 25, 1958: 30,707 Europeans immigrated under the Act through 1968, representing 4 percent of all European humanitarian immigrants during the 1946-68 period.

  John Speer explained that the Act “afforded an opportunity for Hungarian refugees, paroled into the [U.S.] after October 23, 1956 [the date the Soviet Union invaded Hungary], to attain the status of permanent residents — retroactive to the date of arrival.”

• The Act of September 11, 1957: 16,833 Europeans immigrated under the Act through 1968, representing 2 percent of all European humanitarian immigrants during the 1946-68 period.

Speer explained that:

The purpose of this law was said to be “to provide a non-quota status with specified limitations for ... the remaining refugees and expellees who were not in a position to qualify for visas before the expiration of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, as amended”. … Section 15 (a) and (b) allotted 18,656 non-quota immigrant visas, unused under the Refugee Relief Act, to German expellees, persons of Dutch ethnic origin and “refugee-escapees” [defined as “any alien who, because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion has fled or shall flee … from any Communist, Communist-dominated, or Communist-occupied area, or … from any country within the general area of the Middle East, and who cannot return to such area, or to such country, on account of race, religion, or political opinion”]. The Refugee Relief Act had expired nearly one year prior to enactment.

• The Act of July 14, 1960: 14,981 Europeans immigrated under the Act through 1968, representing 2 percent of all European humanitarian immigrants during the 1946-68 period.

  John Speer explained that: 

  [T]he [U.S.] was authorized to receive, through parole procedure, 25% of the total number of refugee-escapees, falling under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner, which were to be accepted for resettlement by other countries. These refugee-escapees were admitted to the [U.S.] under a parole provision in the Act, with permanent residence — as of the date of arrival — available to them at the expiration of a two-year waiting period. 

• The Act of October 3, 1965 (The “Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965”): 11,769 Europeans immigrated under section 2 of the Act through 1968, representing 2 percent of all European humanitarian immigrants during the 1946-68 period.

  Section 2 provides in part that:

  • Conditional entries shall … be made available by the Attorney General … in a number not to exceed [10,200 in any fiscal year], to aliens who … because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion they have fled … from any Communist or Communist-dominated country or area, or … from any country within the general area of the Middle East, and are unable or unwilling to return to such country or area on account of race, religion, or political opinion, and … are not nationals of the countries or areas in which their application for conditional entry is made … or … are persons uprooted by catastrophic natural calamity as defined by the President who are unable to return to their usual place of abode. [Emphasis added.]

  • [I]mmigrant visas in a number not exceeding one-half the number specified … may be made available, in lieu of conditional entries of a like number, to such aliens who have been continuously physically present in the [U.S.] for a period of at least two years.

• The Act of September 2, 1958: 9,896 Europeans immigrated under the Act through 1968, representing 1 percent of all European humanitarian immigrants during the 1946-68 period.

  The Act authorized 1,500 special nonquota immigrant visas for “nationals or citizens of Portugal who, because of natural calamity in the Azores Islands subsequent to September 1, 1957, are out of their usual place of abode in such islands and unable to return thereto, and who are in urgent need of assistance for the essentials of life” and “a number of special nonquota immigrant visas not to exceed the annual quota allocated … [to] the Netherlands” to “nationals or citizens of the Netherlands who have been displaced from their usual place of abode in … Indonesia subsequent to January 1, 1949, and who were residing in [the] Netherlands on the enactment date”, provided that quota numbers were not available to the beneficiaries. Spouses and unmarried sons or daughters under 21 could also be issued such visas notwithstanding numerical limitations.

• The Act of November 2, 1966: 3,233 Europeans immigrated under the Act through 1968, representing less than 1 percent of all European humanitarian immigrants during the 1946-68 period.

  Speer explained:

  [The Act] provided for adjustment of status to that of permanent resident for any alien who was a native or citizen of Cuba and already physically present for two years or more in the [U.S.], if such alien applied for adjustment in the [U.S.] and was admissible for permanent residence [plus the spouse and child if residing in the U.S. with the alien].

• The Act of September 22, 1959: 1,376 Europeans immigrated under the Act through 1968, representing less than 1 percent of all European humanitarian immigrants during the 1946-68 period.

  Section 6 provided that special nonquota immigrant visas could be issued to qualifying relatives of refugees admitted under the Refugee Relief Act of 1953.

Appendix B: Table Sources and Notes

Table 1: National Origin Quotas: Country-By-Country Impact

Sources

Immigration (1900-09/1910-19): U.S. Bureau of the Census, “2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics”, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, 2017, Table 2 (region or country of last residence); U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1921, U.S. Department of Labor, 1921, at Table XIV-A (immigrants admitted “by races or peoples”).

’21 Act quota: “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1968”, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1968, Table 124.

’24 Act quota I: Ibid; Presidential Proclamation 1703, June 30, 1924.

’24 Act quota II: Ibid.; Presidential Proclamation 1872, March 22, 1929.

Notes

Bulgaria: 1900-09/1910-19: Figures include Serbia and Montenegro.

Czechoslovakia: 1900-09/1910-19: Figures represent “Bohemian and Moravian (Czech)” and “Slovak” immigrants admitted per table of those admitted “by races or peoples”.

Finland: 1900-09/1910-19: Figures represent “Finnish” immigrants admitted in table of those admitted “by races or peoples”.

Ireland: ’21 Act quota: This is an estimate of the House Comm. on Immigration and Naturalization (H.R. Rept. No. 68-350 at 17 (1924)).

Lithuania: 1900-1909/1910-19/1921: Figures represent “Lithuanian” immigrants admitted per table of those admitted “by races or peoples”; ’21 Act quota/’24 Act quota I: These are estimates of the House Comm. on Immigration and Naturalization (H.R. Rept. No. 68-350 at 17 (1924)).

Poland: 1900-09/1910-19: Figures represent “Polish” immigrants admitted, per table of those admitted “by races or peoples” as Poland included in Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Russia.

Russia: 1900-09/1910-19: Figures are for the Russian empire and include Finland and part of Poland.

Yugoslavia: 1910-19/1910-19: Figures represent “Bulgarian, Serbian, and Montenegrin”, “Croatian and Slovenian”, and “Dalmatian, Bosnian and Herzegovinian” immigrants admitted, per table of those admitted “by races or peoples”.

Table 2. U.S. Residents Born in European Countries: 1890-1970

Sources

1890/1900/1910/1920/1930/1960/1970: Campbell J. Gibson & Emily Lennon, “Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850-1990”, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 4 (Region and Country or Area of Birth of the Foreign-Born, with Geographic Detail Shown in Decennial Census Publications of 1930 or Earlier: 1850 to 1930 and 1960 to 1990).

1940/1950: “Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1957”, U.S. Census Bureau, Section 1: Population, table 33 (Nativity and Parentage of the Foreign White Stock, By Country of Origin: 1940 and 1950).

Table 3. Utilization of the Immigration Quotas: Country-By-Country

Sources

1951-68: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1969” (Section 3: Immigration and Naturalization, table 123).

1947-50: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1951” (Section 3: Immigration and Naturalization, table 106).

1931-46: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1950 (Section 3: Immigration and Naturalization, table 113).

1925-30: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1931” (Section 3: Immigration and Naturalization, table 104).

Table 4. Displaced Persons/Refugees: Country-By-Country

Source

1946-1968: “1968 Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service”, Table 6E (country or region of birth).

Table 5. Quota Immigration as Percentage of All Immigration: Year-By-Year

Sources

1965: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1965”, Tables 4, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6B (by country or region of birth) (quota immigrants worldwide excludes 42 members of foreign government organizations (FGO), non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 10 refugee beneficiaries of the Act of September 11, 1957 (1957 Act), 18 Hungarian parolee beneficiaries of the Act of July 25, 1958 (Hungarian parolees), and 4,392 refugee-escapee beneficiaries of the Act of July 14, 1960 (1960 Act), quota immigrants: Europe excludes 6 FGO, non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 2 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 18 beneficiaries of the 1958 Act, and 3,145 beneficiaries of the 1960 Act).

1964: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1964”, Tables 4, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6B (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excludes 30 FGO; non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes one refugee beneficiary of the “Refugee Relief Act of 1953” (1953 Act), 31 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 17 Hungarian parolees, and 4,106 beneficiaries of the 1960 Act; quota immigrants: Europe excludes seven FGO; non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 10 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 17 Hungarian parolees, and 3,585 beneficiaries of the 1960 Act.

1963: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1963”, Tables 4, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6B (by country or region of birth), 6C (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excludes 40 GFO and one displaced person; Nonquota Immigrants Worldwide excludes three beneficiaries of the 1953 Act, 213 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 20 Hungarian parolees, 1,888 beneficiaries of the Act of Sept. 2, 1958 (1958 Act), and 2,005 beneficiaries of the 1960 Act; Quota Immigrants: Europe excludes one displaced person; Nonquota Immigrants: Europe excludes three beneficiaries of the 1953 Act, 78 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 20 Hungarian parolees, 619 beneficiaries of the 1958 Act, and 1,752 beneficiaries of the 1960 Act.

1962: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1962”, Tables 4, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6B (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excludes 11 FGO, 3 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 15 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act, 1,809 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 51 Hungarian parolees and 4,796 beneficiaries of the 1958 Act; quota immigrants: Europe excludes five FGO and three displaced persons; non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 13 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act, 701 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 51 Hungarian parolees and 1,958 beneficiaries of the 1958 Act.

1961: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1961”, tables 4, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6B (by country or region of birth) (quota immigrants worldwide excludes 30 FGO, non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 3,982 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 122 Hungarian parolees and 5,472 beneficiaries of the 1958 Act, quota immigrants: Europe excludes 2 FGO, non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 1,947 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 121 Hungarian parolees and 1,854 beneficiaries of the 1958 Act).

1960: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1960”, Tables 4, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6B (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excludes 21 FGO, non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 43 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act, 7,448 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 5,067 Hungarian parolees and 8,162 beneficiaries of the 1958 Act, quota immigrants: Europe excludes 1 FGO, non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 43 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act, 4,443 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 5,059 Hungarian parolees and 4,176 beneficiaries of the 1958 Act.

1959: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1959”, Tables 4, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6B (by country or region of birth), 7A (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excludes six displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 198 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act, 24,834 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 25,424 Hungarian parolees and 1,187 beneficiaries of the 1958 Act; quota immigrants: Europe excludes six displaced persons; non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 39 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act, 17,681 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, 25,395 Hungarian parolees, and 969 beneficiaries of the 1958 Act.

1958: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1958”, Tables 4, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6D (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excludes 76 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 1,012 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act and 24,467 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act; quota immigrants: Europe excludes 76 displaced persons (assuming all displaced persons were European); non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 177 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act and 19,739 beneficiaries of the 1957 Act.

1957: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1957”, Tables 4, 6 (by country or region of birth), 7A; quota immigrants worldwide excludes 94 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 82,444 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act; quota immigrants: Europe excludes 37 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 72,862 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act.

1956: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1956”, Tables 3, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6A (by country or region of last permanent residence), 7A; quota immigrants worldwide excludes 485 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 75,473 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act; quota immigrants: Europe excludes 485 displaced persons (assuming all displaced persons were European); non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 69,797 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act).

1955: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1956” , Table 7A; “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1955”, Tables 3, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6B (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excluding 2,615 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excluding 29,002 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act; quota immigrants: Europe excluding 2,602 displaced persons (assuming all displaced persons who adjusted status in the U.S. were European); non-quota immigrants: Europe excluding 28,000 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act.

1954: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1956”, Table 7A; “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1954”, Tables 3, 6 (by country or region of birth) and 6C (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excluding 6,082 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excluding 821 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act; quota immigrants: Europe excluding 6,030 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants: Europe excluding 789 beneficiaries of the 1953 Act.

1953: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1953”, Tables 3, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6C (by country or region of birth) (quota immigrants worldwide excludes 4,805 displaced persons and 318 ethnic German displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 1,033 displaced persons; quota immigrants: Europe excludes 4,783 displaced persons and 318 ethnic German displaced persons; non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 1,029 displaced persons.

1952: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1952”, Tables 3, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6C (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excludes 77,196 displaced persons and 42,786 ethnic German displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 1,982 displaced persons; quota immigrants: Europe excludes 76,755 displaced persons and 42,786 ethnic German displaced persons; non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 1,968 displaced persons.

1951: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1951”, Tables 3, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6C (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excludes 95,920 displaced persons and 2,040 ethnic German displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 595 displaced persons; quota immigrants: Europe excludes 94,775 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 585 displaced persons.

1950: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1950”, Tables 3, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6C (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excludes 124,120 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 233 displaced persons; quota immigrants: Europe excludes 123,408 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 221 displaced persons.

1949: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1949”, Tables 3, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6B (by country or region of birth; (quota immigrants worldwide excludes 39,734 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 314 displaced persons; quota immigrants: Europe excludes 39,650 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 314 displaced persons.

1948: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1948” , Tables 3, 6 by country or region of birth), 6B (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excludes 19,446 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 1,309 displaced persons; quota immigrants: Europe excludes 19,163 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 1,280 displaced persons.

1947: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1947”, Tables 3, 6 (by country or region of birth), 6B (by country or region of birth); quota immigrants worldwide excludes 18,610 displaced persons (5/20/46 through 6/30/47); non-quota immigrants worldwide excludes 959 displaced persons; quota immigrants: Europe excludes 18,455 displaced persons; non-quota immigrants: Europe excludes 904 displaced persons).

1946: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1946”, Tables 3 and 6 (by country or region of birth).

1945: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1945”, Tables 3 and 6 (by country or region of birth).

1944: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the Year Ended June 30, 1944”, Table 4.

1943: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Earl G. Harrison, Commissioner”, Table IV (by country of birth).

1942: “Annual report of Lemuel B. Schofield, Special Assistant to the Attorney General in Charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Year Ended June 30 1942”, Table at 2-42.

1941: “Report of Special Assistant to the Attorney General Lemuel B. Schofield in Charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service” (1941), Tables VIII (by country or region of birth), IX.

1940: “Report of Special Assistant to the Attorney General Lemuel B. Schofield in Charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service” (1941), Table IX; “Twenty-Eighth Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1940”, Table V (by country or region of birth).

1939: “Report of Special Assistant to the Attorney General Lemuel B. Schofield in Charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service” (1941), Table IX; “Twenty-Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939”, Table V (by country or region of birth).

1938: “Report of Special Assistant to the Attorney General Lemuel B. Schofield in Charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service” (1941), Table IX; “Twenty-Sixth Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1938”, Table V (by country or region of birth).

1937: “Twenty-Fifth Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1937”, table at 87 (by country or region of birth).

1936: “Twenty-Fourth Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1936”; Table at 94 (by country or area of birth).

1935: “Twenty-Third Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1935”, tables at 83, 84 (by country or area of birth).

1934: “Twenty-Third Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1935”, table at 83; “Twenty-Second Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1934”, table at 58 (by country or region of birth).

1933: “Twenty-Third Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1935”; table at 83, “Twenty-First Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1933”, table at 47 (by country of birth).

1932: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1932”, table 45 (by country or area of birth).

1931: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1931, table 48 (by country or area of birth).

1930: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1930”, table 48 (by country or area of birth).

1929: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1929”, table 48 (by country or area of birth).

1928: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1928”, table 48 (by or area of birth).

1927: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1927”, table 44 (by country or area of birth).

1926: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1926”, table 42 (by country or area of birth).

1925: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1925”, table 50 (by country or area of birth).

Table 6. Quota Immigration as Percentage of All Immigration: Country-By-Country

Sources

1965: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1965”, Table 6 (not including immigrants beneficiaries of the 1957 Act, Hungarian parolees, or beneficiaries of the 1960 Act as nonquota immigrants).

1957: “Annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1957”, Table 6 (not including refugees as nonquota immigrants).

1930: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1930”, Table 48 (not including returning residents and students as nonquota immigrants).

Table 7. Contribution to European Immigration: Country-By-Country

Sources

1931-68: “1969 Annual Report Immigration and Naturalization Service”, Table 13 (country of last or future permanent residence).

1929-30: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1930”, Table 3 (country of last or future permanent residence).

1927-28: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1928”, Table 3 (country of last or future permanent residence).

1925-26: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1926”, Table 3 (country of last or future permanent residence).

1923-24: “Twelfth Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1924”, Table III (country of last or future permanent residence).

1921-22: “Tenth Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1922”, Table III (country of last or future permanent residence).

1900-09: “2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics” Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, 2017, Table 2 (prior to 1906 refers to country of origin, since then refers to country of last residence).

Notes

Austria: Austria and Hungary recorded separately since 1905. In the years 1938-45, Austria was included with Germany.

Bulgaria: Bulgaria included Serbia and Montenegro before 1920. Since 1922, the Serb, Croat, and Slovene Kingdom was recorded as Yugoslavia.

Czechoslovakia: Figures are available for Czechoslovakia since 1920.

Finland: Finland included in Russia before 1920.

Hungary: Austria and Hungary have been recorded separately since 1905.

Ireland: Ireland includes Northern Ireland.

Lithuania: Figures are available for Lithuania since 1924.

Poland: Poland has been recorded as a separate county since 1920 (and before was included with Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia).

Russia/U.S.S.R.: Between 1931 and 1963, the U.S.S.R. was broken down into European and Asian components. Since then, all immigration from the U.S.S.R. was included within Europe.

United Kingdom: In the years 1901-51, Great Britain “not specified” was included in “other Europe”.

Table 8. Immigration vs. Emigration: Country-By-Country

Sources

1950-57:, “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1960”, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (Section 4: Immigration, Emigration and Naturalization, Table 117).

1949: “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1954”, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (Section 3: Immigration, Emigration and Naturalization, Table 113).

1945-48: “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1950”, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (Section 3: Immigration, Emigration and Naturalization, Table 115).

1940-44: “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1944-45”, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (Section 4: Immigration, Emigration and Citizenship, table 118).

1938-39: “Twenty-Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939”, Table II at 91 (by country of last or intended future permanent residence).

1934-37: “Twenty-Fifth Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1937”, Table at 83 (by country of last or intended future permanent residence).

1932: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1932”, Table 2 by country of last or intended future permanent residence).

1930-31: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1931”, Table 3 (by country of last or intended future permanent residence).

1929: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1930”, Table 3 (by country of last or intended future permanent residence).

1927-28: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1928”, Table 3 (by country of last or intended future permanent residence).

1925-26: “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1926”, Table 3 (by country of last or intended future permanent residence).

Table 9. Jewish Immigration as Percentage of European Immigration: Year-By-Year

Sources

1941-43: “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1946”, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1946, Tables 122, 123.

1937-40: “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1941”, tables 112, 113 (1942).

1925-36: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, “Statistical Abstract of the United States 1937”, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1938, Tables 99, 100.

1900-09: “2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics”, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, 2017, Table 2 (region or country of last residence); “Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1921”, table XIV.

End Notes

¹ E.P. Hutchinson, Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798-1965, 468 (1981).

² Nancy Ordover, “Johnson-Reed Act (The 1924 National Origins Act, or the Immigration Act of 1924)”, in A Historical Encyclopedia: Anti-Immigration in the United States, Vol. 1, 301 (Kathleen Arnold, ed.) (2011).

³ Daniel Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America, 144-45 (2002).

⁴ The Act provided that the term “inhabitants in continental United States in 1920” shall not include:

(1) immigrants from the [Western Hemisphere] or their descendants, (2) aliens ineligible to citizenship or their descendants, (3) the descendants of slave immigrants, or (4) the descendants of American aborigines.

⁵ Tichenor at 145.

⁶ Hutchinson at 473.

⁷ Id. at 472-73.

⁸ Id. at 473.